Posted
by
Zonkon Wednesday November 07, 2007 @01:21PM
from the just-finish-out-the-mass-effect-trilogy dept.

Gamasutra is reporting on comments from Microsoft executive Mindy Mount, reacting to Nintendo's Satoru Iwata and his observations about the modern console life cycle. Mount indicated that the company is looking towards the PlayStation 2's success well into its lifespan for inspiration. "In comments very similar to those made by Iwata, Mount suggested that a rush to create a new generation of consoles was not necessary until there was a compelling hardware feature to justify it. 'At this point from the technological perspective, there are some real advances ... that make it worth having a next-generation console," said Mount. "Right now there aren't that many things on the horizon that you think, wow, that's going to be a game-changer.'"

Microsoft *realy* need to get the quality control situation figured out before they can hope the 360 will have the console life of the PS2. Lets face it, when your two or three year old console breaks, chances are you won't buy another one.

What if you don't have to, because it's still under warranty? That's all that has saved their ass so far...I will say, though, that I buy/rent games on my PS3 rather than my 360 if given the choice now because my 360 is acting weird sometimes (graphical corruption that goes away when it's turned off and back on) and I don't want to have to wait 6 weeks until I can play it again. It's easier to just get them for the PS3 and not have to worry about it.

if the console actually lasted that long.I sent one back for "red ring of death" - which they still won't admit is their own fucking fault for not putting in enough cooling for the original processors (multiple sites have opened up the new ones and photographed the enlarged heatsinks they're putting in now compared to the original).

What do I get back? A "replacement" unit that dies a month later because the fucking DVD drive motor is defective.

This is exactly what happened to me. I had to send my first back in because of the Red Ring of Death, and now the DVD drive died about a month ago. I have yet to call them about it, but this is the type of problem that will keep them from their hope of being like the PS2. The only thing that will keep me from replacing it with a PS3 is the number of games I already own for the 360. Otherwise I'd be moving on to other consoles.

The only thing that will keep me from replacing it with a PS3 is the number of games I already own for the 360. Otherwise I'd be moving on to other consoles.

Ok, this will be obvious, but that is the kind of situation eBay was invented for. There is a German saying that goes: "Besser ein Ende mit Schrecken, als ein Schrecken ohne Ende." (An ending with horrors is better than never ending horror.) What's the appropriate idiom in English, as I can't seem to find it?

Having worked in retail during the life cycle of the PS2 I can say, beyond any and all doubt, that the Xbox 360 is no worse than the PS2 in regards to issues. I once had a customer buying their 5th PS2 in 3 years... Then again while working retail I saw alot of things that just make me believe that all the console vendors are idiots about hardware... And it's all done in the name of lowering cost of construction...

I will say, though, that I buy/rent games on my PS3 rather than my 360 if given the choice now because my 360 is acting weird sometimes (graphical corruption that goes away when it's turned off and back on) and I don't want to have to wait 6 weeks until I can play it again. It's easier to just get them for the PS3 and not have to worry about it.

A few friends of mine have picked up PS3's to avoid Xbox live. They got tired of paying for live. So any good multi-platform games they buy the PS3 version id possible to play online for free. I swore off the Wii virtual console shop due to the lack of transferability of the games. They die with your wii as Nintendo has a strict policy about those games and transferring and I ran into it when my new Wii was defective and I opted to exchange instead of sending it off to be refurbished. It made me realize anything I spent there is wasted when my wii dies after the warranty period. I also swore off Xbox live because of the inane credit card retention policy. They make it extremely hard to remove a CC after you use it and there really isn't any good reason for it. PSN or the wii Shopping channel don't demand your card stay persistent with your machine. So I'm on the PSN only for that sort of shopping. They allow you to redownload even off another machine and they allow me to remove my card off my machine if I wish.

Did you realize that you can transfer all your virtual games into a memory card on the wii? if the console died you could replace it with a new one and just transfer the games back inside. Or just download them in the external sd card. that is what i did when i broke up with my previous gf and she decided to keep the console, so i transfered the games to an sd card and bought a new one... now i still can play my virtualconsole games.

Or just download them in the external sd card. that is what i did when i broke up with my previous gf and she decided to keep the console, so i transfered the games to an sd card and bought a new one... now i still can play my virtualconsole games.

Really. how? i do have a back up of my virtual console games but it refuses to allow them to be copied.

Did you realize that you can transfer all your virtual games into a memory card on the wii? if the console died you could replace it with a new one and just transfer the games back inside. Or just download them in the external sd card. that is what i did when i broke up with my previous gf and she decided to keep the console, so i transfered the games to an sd card and bought a new one... now i still can play my virtualconsole games.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but my impression was tha

Wikipedia does link to an article which has an interview with a Nintendo rep who claims, "Nintendo will offer support to help Wii owners with problems to recover their games [if your console breaks]," so it looks like the GP 'should' have went through Nintendo to replace their console if they wanted to keep their downloaded games. Not saying the should *have* to, just seems like that's Nintendo's policy. (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=148658)

As I said, maybe I'm misunderstanding you. But from everything I've read, you shouldn't have been able to transfer your games off your girlfriend's console and back to a new console, and I suspect that's not actually what happened.-Trillian

I don't think he actually did move the wii games. Nintendo told me I was out of luck. The mechanism they have is "repair" where they either transfer all the contents to another wii and reset the encrypt keys to the new one or they fix your old one by giving you refurbed parts. It wasn't acceptable because the wii was brand new and I would not accept refurbed parts and they couldn't guarantee a new wii was coming back. I opted to exchange and lose my $20 in wii points but it also meant anything I purchased

So why not a refurb? I've had startlingly good luck with refurbished things over the years - it seems like they get the QC that units coming off of the assembly line don't get. Even thinking about it, I can't remember ever having a refurbished product break, and I've bought plenty of refurbished things over the years.

I have too. they tend not to last as long. Someone linked to an article that stated refurbed 360's had double the failure rate of new 360's (360's returned after repair were more likely to fail again then new). I can't find the post. It was regarding a RROD article a while back. for optical drives, the electric motor in them has a finite lifespan. Refurbs are used products thus anything I get back is likely to have consumed part of that lifespan. Thats why refurbs are always cheaper. Wear and tear from usa

Create a my.nintendo.com account and tie it to your Wii. If you get a new Wii, you change the association on your my.nintendo.com account and the games will stop working on the old system and be available on the new one.

I don't remember the specifics of how to do it, but I believe it was all mentioned in the Wii manual. If not there, then at my.nintendo.com.

Create a my.nintendo.com account and tie it to your Wii. If you get a new Wii, you change the association on your my.nintendo.com account and the games will stop working on the old system and be available on the new one.

I don't remember the specifics of how to do it, but I believe it was all mentioned in the Wii manual. If not there, then at my.nintendo.com.

Did so after exchange, no luck. Nintendo explicitly said the games are non transferable between machines. The manual does not provide instructions for this. It is explicitly not possible and the my.nintendo.com account is more for advertising.

Did so after exchange, no luck. Nintendo explicitly said the games are non transferable between machines. The manual does not provide instructions for this. It is explicitly not possible and the my.nintendo.com account is more for advertising.

The problem is you tried to do it after the fact. The my.nintendo.com FAQ specifically says that games you purchase before associating your shop channel account with your my.nintendo.com account don't get registered.

The problem is you tried to do it after the fact. The my.nintendo.com FAQ specifically says that games you purchase before associating your shop channel account with your my.nintendo.com account don't get registered.

If it wasn't in the manual, it was in the user agreement when you create the Wii shop channel account. They were very specific that that was the reason for associating it.

Can you direct me to the page I can't find it. [google.ca] And no I registered before purchasing and my.Nintendo account displays all 3 of the games I purchased. No luck transferring to the new wii. I may have missed something but here are the details:

Monday:
Got wii,
set up wii,
put in wii sports played a bit.Tuesday:
Resitered for my.nintendo,
linked to wii using shop channel settings, registered CC
bought $20 of VC points,

Log in to my.nintendo.com and the FAQ is near the top of the page. It basically just says you can't transfer the games to someone else, and that it only tracks games purchased after the association.It must've been in the Wii Shop account creation that the info was, but I very specifically remember reading this, and I didn't go looking for it on my own. My understanding though was that deleting your Wii Shop account permanently closed it, however, if you went to another Wii and registered your my.nintendo.c

Log in to my.nintendo.com and the FAQ is near the top of the page. It basically just says you can't transfer the games to someone else, and that it only tracks games purchased after the association.

It must've been in the Wii Shop account creation that the info was, but I very specifically remember reading this, and I didn't go looking for it on my own. My understanding though was that deleting your Wii Shop account permanently closed it, however, if you went to another Wii and registered your my.nintendo.com account there first, you would move the account. I remember it specifically said that if you did the transfer, the games would stop working on the old console, which would imply you were supposed to do the transfer first.

Excerpted from the FAQ section:Q:Can I register games that I purchase on my Wii Virtual Console?

A:Yes! But, you must first link your Wii Shop Channel to your My Nintendo profile. Once this link is created, the Virtual Console games you download will automatically be added to the list of registered games.

Please note that this Wii Shop Channel/My Nintendo link is not created when you register your serial number using My Nintendo's Product Registration program. This link is created using the Wii Console (Wii

I also swore off Xbox live because of the inane credit card retention policy. They make it extremely hard to remove a CC after you use it and there really isn't any good reason for it.

Are you aware that nothing on live actually requires a credit card? Gold membership and points cards are available at pretty much every store that sells games - and they are priced exactly the same as buying points through the console/web site.

Are you aware that nothing on live actually requires a credit card? Gold membership and points cards are available at pretty much every store that sells games - and they are priced exactly the same as buying points through the console/web site.

You are aware that is irrelevant. I object to the policy. You may be able to circumvent it but the policy itself is not that great. I can certainly circumvent Chinese political speech laws when in china if I just don't say anything however that doesn't make the policy wrong.

You can still send your Wii in after the warranty expires, you just don't get the repairs for free. Just because you were too lazy to do it properly doesn't mean the system is faulty.

Lazy? I had to do a lot of leg work to find a EB with a wii to exchange. A new wii vs a repaired wii is always better. A repair often gives you a refurbished replacement for the part that is broken and they ship it both ways. The defect on my wii was a broken optical drive that failed to read the dist about 60% of the time. Statistically a repaired electronic device has a drastically increased failure rate. A refurbed optical drive brings the expected lifespan of the wii down greatly as well. My wii was in

So your VC purchases were worth less to you than your fear of a refurbished unit. What do you expect Nintendo to do about that? You haven't even verified if they'd send you a refurbished unit.

They wouldn't guarantee it wasn't refurbished. Most repair centres use refubs (xbox certainly does as does Sony) And yes the $20 in VC was worth less then the higher rate of future breakdowns on the new unit. However does Nintendo really expect me not to complain with such policies? Remember this is slashdot, I thought we objected to unreasonably restrictive DRM but apparently Nintendo gets a free Pass?

Funny how my launch PS2 still works... Guess it's not as ubiquitous as the RRoD...

YMMV... but I have only had Microsoft consoles fail on me... *shrug* meaningless, but mindshare is part of all of this, and if MS doesn't ramp up QC so everyone doesn't need to use their warranty, the next generation will have Microsoft going the way of Sega, in spite of having Halo 3.

My launch PS2 works too this day without a single error. Hell, I left the thing on with a game playing for three months in a row once. I would love to see a launch 360 do anything at that point in its lifespan.

I dont think they break down on their own as much as they are easy to break. I know my girlfriend's little brother's PS2 died on its own, and its replacement ruin Guitar Hero II and also died (my suspicion is that he just doesn't take care of it good enough). My own PS2 got shifted within the shell while traveling with it, so I have to have two controllers and a memory card in it just to play.

Ditto on the launch PS2 working fine years later... it's a little finicky sometimes with reading games but give it time it works itself out. I've left it on for a month straight, transported it around to friends' (can't remember if I ever dropped it) and it still works fine, honestly best console I've ever had besides my SNES which is still trucking like, what, 16 years later?

My PS2 still functions well. But of course I'm a sample size of 1, so that doesn't mean much.What I came here to say is that this can't be anything but a good thing. Why should everyone rush out to buy a new console every four years or so? If the PS1/PS2/PS3 and X-Box/X-Box 360 aren't going to change their strategy and market segment at all (like Nintendo has, in handhelds and consoles), there's no great reason to get the latest and greatest.

a) wants to eventually have a home media center thing where they get a slice of all games played and all ppv video you watch and all songs you download. They need to "upgrade" people from the 360 to that system or the next step in that direction.

b) They never get anything right till their third rev. The xbox 360/2 has a shot at being a decent unit by that measure.

This is one reason why the PS2 has sold more machines than any other console. The PS2 consistently breaks down a few years after (usually the laser on the DVD drive).

Bullshit. People who say this are missing the obvious hole in their argument: attach rates.

If everybody out there were constantly re-buying broken PS2's, the attach rate would plateau and then actually drop. Think about it - a person with 10 games has an attach rate of 10. Then their console breaks, so they buy another one; now their attach rate is 5. (10 games divided by 2 consoles.) But that has never happened. The PS2's attach rate has only ever gone up, consistently, and at least to a year or two ago, the rise in attach rates was actually accelerating. (It's natural for attach rates to start to stabilize at the end of a system's lifespan, as people stop buying games for it.)

I've never been convinced that any model of PS2 has ever had a higher defect rate than the industry average, or were any easier to break. It was a popular system, so naturally you were going to have some people with breakdowns. It's not like the 360, which even MS has admitted has multiple design flaws (their own words) and seems to have close to a 100% defect rate, judging by both the anecdotal reports and by MS's expectations of what it's going to cost them to repair defective units. But here you have multiple people saying their launch PS2's work just fine - chalk me up as another, and Sony has never had to cop to any problems with these systems. There's never been any threat of any class action either.

I've seen about as many reports of the Wii overheating as I did of PS2 breakdowns in the early days.

I'm not so sure about that. If you have a console for 2-3 years and it breaks (like both my game cube and ps2 did) you are left with a ton of games that do nothing without the console so unless your will ing to get rid of your entire game library you will buy another, and in some cases another.

Mine broke in just under a year. I put halo 3 in for the first time and all the dark blues were a bright green. My other games were fine except gears of war, which, when put in the xbox, told me to put the dvd in an xbox360 before continuing. I think it somehow is trying to play the game in dvd mode. A friend told me that this was similar to what happened to his before he got the 3 rings of light.Around n64/ps1 gaming era my NES still worked without having to wiggle the cartridges around. My 5 year old ps2

Of course, it's not totally. Microsoft's decision how long the 360 lasts, they've got to ensure publisher support doesn't dry up like it did with the Xbox. I've read in a lot of places that this was down to customers jumping ship to the 360 and the back compatability wasn't really there, so there was no point in developing original Xbox titles. This seems like a good time to bring it up again and ask whether this is reason why the platform was abandoned, or a just-so story.

The biggest factor in killing the original xbox is that it was a financial failure that held very little market share. microsoft jumped the gun and released on a 4-year schedule to be first, because they care more about spreading their desktop computing monopoly to the living room than with putting out a good product or anything else.Of course they're going to be jealous of the PS2 lifespan. It's been a great machine (minus a few hardware difficulties early on) with possibly the deepest lineup of games on

If he did, MS would have made ONE version of the 360. Does he really think he can get away for 7 years with a console without a harddisk for that long? Does he really think DVD's are going to be a big enough storage option for that long?

MS has set themselves up to have a constant stream of 360 setups that won't be good enough to play new releases. A game will need a HD, a game will need HD-DVD and whatever else MS WILL decide to add in the future. Make NO mistake about it. MS will find it impossible to resist to release newer 'better' versions of the 360.

Then there is the hardware itself, current generation consoles are obsolete already compared to the PC. Even a modest PC gaming rig will have more video memory then consoles have for TOTAL memory.

Does this matter? Can you say MMORPG? That is one big cash machine in the game industry but so far there has been little luck getting it too run on consoles. That is because in a MMORPG you never really know what is going to happen next. They are memory hogs because they need to have lots of data loaded all the time.

In a more traditional game, no matter how large the level, it is more or less up to the designer WHAT is actually in that level. In a MMORPG (or for that matter a modded game like The Sims or Oblivion) the contents of a level can skyrocket simply because of varation.

I can come across several dozen people each in outfits with their own textures.

Stream load that!

It is one of the reasons why user mods to games like The Sims and Oblivion and Never Winter Nights seem to always include higher resolution textures and more style choices. Why didn't the company include them from the start? Because their minimum requirements would have skyrocketed. My 'pimped' oblivion makes the original look like morrowind but the cost in hardware is extreem.

We all seen how PC games that got the console treatment had to be butchered to deal with the limitations of obsolete hardware. Deus Ex 2 anyone? Why can't I access the huge amount of user mods on the console versions of Oblivion? Where is the user commonity of the Console version of The Sims?

7 years is a long time for the 360 but more importantly Microsoft. Sony is a different company then MS, it (used to be at least) is a hardware company. MS is a software company, and I think MS will find it impossible to resist pushing updates.

The proof? The lifespan of the x-box. It was DEAD the moment the 360 was released, Sony is still actively working on the PS2. This despite the fact that the x-box was a younger machine.

Hardware limitations aside, MS is just not a company that can support a product for so long without new must have features being slipped in. When they see that PC gaming (in which they after all have a very important role) is overtaking their console gaming division in capabilities they WILL release a new 360 with more memory or something, effectivly ending the life of previous models.

But hey, if they don't that is good new too, I am looking forward as a PC snob of half a decade of looking down on console gamers and their quant old relics again.

I've always understood the first iteration of the xbox to be a wash. Microsoft was making a beachhead in a new market, and it seems to me that they were willing to suffer the initial losses so that they could build the foundation for the current generation (a la 360). The quality issues seemed to be a result of a rush to market without adequate testing and had not the specter of rapid development haunted them, it would have appeared to be a rather successful strategy.

It was no wash, my friend. It was unnecessarily expensive to the tune of several billions. MS could have figured out a way to do it cheaper, but instead went with the idea of makeing the supreme.

The supreme, in technology, is always a loser. It's far too expensive and not that much better than a cheap alternative (the ps2). Sony somehow emulated the xbox instead of the PS2... MS did not simply pay the price of entry with the XBOX, they screwed up in several ways.

From a business standpoint, it was a total wash. They didn't make a single dime off the xbox. MS had no experience in the console arena. They knew the xbox would tank. They expected it. If they didn't expect it, the loss of capital would not have been tolerated and the 360 would not exist. The first generation was all about establishing a brand, laying down the infrastructure, and learning the ropes. In such light, Microsoft achieved their goals. This current generation is all about owning the marke

Your post is really a bunch of poor assumptions, that have been addressed elsewhere. I mean, before you posted.

The 360 is already on year two. They've already stated there will be no HD-DVD games. The PS2 was trumped by computers long before that one started to fade. And really, you could say it isn't even fading yet, and computers are way past what the PS2 can do.

The fact that you used WILL doesn't mean your right. The 360 will most likely stay as is, with improvements only being ones of comfort, not

Give me one of example of the Xbox 360 breaking it's own rules in 2 years? Oh, you got none. Shocking. Oh, what you got the Orange Box's achievements at best?

Next, God of War. Can you follow a conversation? It was clear on technical merits *he* was basic the 360 being outdated compared to PC's. Not on how good the game itself was. You can't cherry pick here. If the PS2 was trumped, and it *was* by PC's, and yet still was popular, the 360 can do the same thing.

God of War had nice graphics for it's time. Great for the PS2, not better then what was on the PC at the time with a decent system. And that was almost 3 years ago now. Which, being that it was almost 3 years ago, doesn't exactly make your point meaningful. And even if I ignored the issues without using God of War, it was still ONE game, the exception, not the norm. And it only bolsters my original point that even after the PC's had longed passed the PS2, the PS2 was a system that people made games for and

Are you mentally retarded? Didn't the "for now" part not cover the "for now" issue?

And yes, they can exist on just DVD for another several years on *that* console. Because even with that *limitation*, and with the fact that they haven't maxed out the system's capabilities, they are already making great games for it "right now".

While more capacity in the delivery medium would get used, with a nice established based people will continue to make games for it that don't suck. When do you see PC's game swit

The Xbox was dead when the 360 was released because MS killed it. They used it as a learning experience to get in to the market and wanted to really focus on this generation. So that really isn't proof of anything. Sony, on the other hand, is making more off of the PS2 than the PS3 so it would be daft for them to stop supporting it.

MMORPGs have been stuck on systems much worse than the 360 (e.g. FFXII)...they may have to tone down the graphics a bit, but that isn't something that is driving the console

I really don't want to address such a long long post, now I know how people who reply to me feel.Long story short, you're right - and wrong.Microsoft have seggregated the market with the hard disk and non hard disk edition of the 360, you're right.The thing is though, they will always support a baseline with the console.There ARE rumours there may be some hard disk only games, which would not be unlike N64 games which required the expanded memory pack for the system.Sure it's rare and it's bloody stupid to

Mount suggested that a rush to create a new generation of consoles was not necessary until there was a compelling hardware feature to justify it.
I wish they applied the same thinking before creating an OS that no one wants and releasing games that ONLY work on that OS. This is what killed Shadowrun's sales

Clearly one of the most innovative pieces of the Playstation 3 platform is the virtual environment. Not as open ended as Second Life, you can still do all the critical things you would like. There are three things people want from a virtual environment:1. Permanency

When someone moves an object, they want that object to stay moved. When they kill a dragon they want that dragon to stay dead. When they learn a new skill they want to always have that skill.

If only Sony would combine Home with LittleBigPlanet.... That would yield exactly what (you think) people want, at least from what I've seen of the two.

In some ways yes. There are other bits that need adding, but I don't want to give everything away. If you're looking for someone who has put the pieces together, give me a call. It love to work on a real project.

Well, if Microsoft wants their console to last that long, I think it MIGHT make it...so long as a couple things happen (most likely already mentioned)1. Fix the hardware issues. I personally have never had a problem with any of my 3 consoles, knock on wood (1 firmware modded, 2 not modded) and I don't personally know anyone that has, but it's obvious something is going on with it.2. Either drop the core, or put a hard drive in there with it. I'm sorry, but the lack of the hard drive is really what is ke

By having a hard drive in the system, coders would be assured that they could have something they could use as a buffer...games would benefit greatly if they could just load the stuff needed for the starting area, and then stream-load as the game played. Granted, Oblivion did decently with this, but it could still be improved (and frankly, Oblivion is one of the few that actually managed this well)Plus, with a hard drive in every system, it might be possible to even set aside a portion of it (say, 512 megs

> The only difference I see is the annoying screen that always asks you what storage device you want to use when saving game state

This boggles the crap out of me, why I'm always getting that screen. I don't even have a memory card, I do have a hundred freakin gigs on the HDD. Maybe the 360 should try some really advanced AI and figure out that when there's only one available option, it might be a sensible default?

I've had my slimline for about 4 years now, and the only problem I have had is with the laser not reading DVD movies anymore, which doesnt bother me, thats what I have a DVD player for. And I keep that thing running almost 24/7, so that says alot about the quality of the hardware.
MS can only hope to produce something remotely similar.

I love the idea of a console lifespan being six to eight years. As we saw with the PS2, while it wasn't the most powerful towards the end of it's life-cycle (which hasn't yet ended), developers had learned how to code for the system so well after five or six years, games often looked and loaded comparably to the more powerful systems. Devil May Cry 3 is a great example of this, with its impressive graphics and negligible load times.

That being said, I have to wonder if Microsoft isn't ceding an advantag

Well it's either a problem or it isn't, and you gotta pick one ^_^ (I may have misread your post, but...) On the one hand the PS2 did (and continues to do) very well despite being less powerful than other consoles out there. On the other hand you say that in the long run the PS3 will have significant andvantages due to more firepower than the 360. Aren't those two analyses somewhat at odds?

I honestly don't know if it will be a problem. My guess is that in the next two to four years, the PS3 will leave the 360 behind in terms of overall quality. If we're talking the seven year life-cycle Microsoft might be striving for, I'm guessing the investment Sony put into the PS3 will almost certainly pay off, and the PS3 will far surpass the 360. From my understanding, the Cell processor isn't nearly as difficult to program for as many on Slashdot would have us believe. I could be wrong though, as e

The PS2 wasn't that inferior to the XBox. The XBox was essentially a PC in a fancy (ugly, IMNSHO) case. The PS2 had an architecture geared specifically to games. I'd compare any of the later Ratchet and Clank PS2 titles with anything on the XBox. (Jade Empire was pretty stunning, though.)Anyway.

The cell processor isn't hard to code for at all. It just takes a different mindset, and the ability to figure out what to turn into little processing packets and send out to a cell. The hardest part is really just m

I think that game companies will see some real payoff in the very near future. I'm looking forward to Insomniac's next "Resistance" title, which will include things like texture streaming to reduce load time (which you can't do on a 360, because there's no guarantee of a hard drive).

Odd, given that one of the reasons Insominac gave for why Gears of War looked better than Resistance was that GoW used texture streaming.

Hmm... personally I think that in terms of visual quality games on both systems will be on about the same level. Some Xbox titles (DOA2 Ultimate, for instance) that came out towards the end of the system's lifespan looked so good that they could almost pass for next-gen. I think that trend of progressively learning to better exploit the hardware on all consoles will continue. I also don't think that superior graphics affects how a system sells because the PS2's graphics were inferior to the GCN and Xbox and

They would be at odds if any of the PS2's competitors (the Xbox and the Gamecube) also had a life-span of the PS2. As it is, since the PS2 is the only console of that generation still selling, then of course it is the most powerful console from that generation that is still around. So when a developer makes a game for a last gen console they pick the PS2 (obviously) but they also have all the experience of it being around for so long that they know the ins and outs.

Yeah, the PS3 is going to have competition. They are still writing games for the PS2!

The PS2 is still being manufactured. Some of the units they made 7 years ago. Even if Sony stopped right now. There will still be a sizable PS2 market 3 or 4 years from now. As it stands, I think the PS2 will still be doing well in 7 years.

My 12 year old son is still clamoring for a PS2. So the PS2 market is STILL expanding.

Even if one concedes the Cell processor is difficult to program for, its clearly not impossible to do so. If vendors continue producing games for the PS3 (and if we're having a realistic argument, its safe to say they will do so, even if not exclusively), they will become more and more familiar with the nuances of programming over time. As this happens, the greater resources on the PS3 will shine through more and more. After four or five years, its entirely possible we could see significant differences in game-play and graphics on PS3 games, opposed to 360 games.

I think with Ratchet and clank the difference is starting to surface. The game looked good but the real distinction is the number of objects on screen were sometimes staggering without slowing the machine down. The number of fully animated object like passing traffic, animal life, distant objects etc... made it a more immersive and believable world.

I'll agree with that. I'm about 1/3 through the game right now and there have been many points at which I was truly surprised by the ability of the PS3 to keep up with what was going on. Just the fact that there can be thousands of items on screen (bolts, raritanium, enemies, stuff happening in the background), they can ALL have their own pretty little effects and animations going, and the framerate is 100% liquid...it's just astounding.I'm pretty unbiased in my standings between the 360 and PS3. I own b

I'm no Sony fanboy...as a matter of fact, I'm one of the few gamers who does not own a PS2 and I know I'm in a very slim minority.

Fact is, any console manufacturer would looove to have the PS2's sales lifecycle; it's the best-selling [vgchartz.com] console of all time.

The other fact is that no matter what lies the XBox 360 game boxes tell (i.e. 1080i/p stickers on game boxes), the 360 renders games like Gears of War and BioShock in 720p (at best) and upscales its output to 1080i/p. Graphically, the 360 is an intermed

Graphics wise the PS3 is the intermediate step between the Wii and the 360.

Although it's really 720p, Ratchet and Clank will change your opinion of where the graphics on the PS3 sit. The problem thus far is that developers are still getting familiar with the PS3. So the first crop of 360 games looked like Xbox + more polies the first crop of PS3 games looks like 360 -frame rate. I think thats starting to change.

Yeah, if you look at the specs the PS3 is more powerful than the 360, it's also capable of creating higher-def images, so it's pretty insane to say it sits somewhere between the Wii and the 360. On paper the PS3's cell processors stomp the xbox 360's processor, but developers aren't yet taking advantage of the PS3's full computing power. It'll probably be another year before we see titles really starting to take advantage of the extra power.

It's funny... I think graphics have gotten to the point to where an accurate comparison can no longer be made. They're chaotic systems now, with different features and capabilities interacting with each other in weird and unpredictable ways.

I think both systems are in generally the same class. Other than that, what can be said? One system streams textures faster, another can apply more pixel filters, etc., etc. Does faster loading from a hard drive cache count as better graphics? What about a simple

... see them make the console itself have a lifespan of a few years (as opposed to the lifetime of this current console generation). Mine bricked back in May, if it wasn't for them extending the warranty I wouldn't have got a replacement (even though the replacement was bricked out of the box). Looking back on things I think I made a mistake buying a 360. I had mine less than a year, and currently I've been without one since May (thanks to the wonderful 6+ weeks wait time).

If they want to have a PS2-like lifespan they better work on fixing the console. It's not much fun owning a video game console which is being repaired/replaced for months on end.

The Xbox 360 should at least be able to stay alive one year... I'm on my 3rd (bought an Elite, hopefully this one will stand the test of time, I don't want to fool around with MS's refurbished ones anymore)... A piece of equipment that expensive, and designed to be used for at least 5 years, should not have these kinds of problems!

MS is clearly trying to use the Sega Genesis model; make a basic system and then continually create upgrades for it. HD-DVD attachment, bigger hard drives, HDMI port, etc. etc. And we all know how well that worked out for Sega.The PS2 was one console, never needed to be upgraded to play new games, and it usually lasted forever. I still have my fat PS2 from early release, and it still works beautifully (had one disc read error a year ago that was fixed by cleaning the disc). Microsoft is clearly NOT goin

One thing that killed Sega was that right after they released their premiere 32-bit platform, the 32-x, they released their OTHER primiere 32-bit platform, the Saturn. So after you bought all that Genesis kit you had to buy the Saturn. MS may not be bringing out a Saturn, but you could very well consider their next system as that, and if they keep gouging their customers for extras (extras on GAMES as well as hardware!!!) then gamers will do what I did with the Genesis and not buy their next system. I re

There was also the availability of the Saturn. I tried to buy one the first Christmas. Only Toys R Us carried them and they were sold out so quickly that I didn't even make it near the counter. After that I didn't see units. I've thought about buying one on Ebay just to see what it was like at this point. I've got a working genesis + cd + 32x, a second genesis (gen1) + cd (gen 2) + 32x that sometimes overheats, and a Dreamcast. To this day, I haven't found a console I like better. I'm sure part of it

We have multi processors and sh!t hot graphics and network play. Can't think of what else they could add. The Xbox 360 on sale in 3 years time won't look a bit like the one on sale now though. It will have a new set of outputs for whatever standards they have then as well as a much bigger hard drive and (possibly) a compulsory HD-DVD drive for bigger games. It hasn't even lasted 2 years without that black one coming out with a few extra features. Possibly like the PC, the future will be incremental rat

Interesting, I recall my playstation two breaking itself twice, ruining my soul calibur disc as well as my disgaea disc.
so far, with the hardware problems, microsoft is following closely in sony's footsteps.

My slim PS2 just killed itself. My crime was using it to play DVDs with wacky copy protection stuff on them (they're very hard to back up.) So mostly I was playing originals anyway. I'm not buying another one. Thus I have a stack of some seven or eight PS2 games for sale. I think I shall put the money towards a USB to gameport interface for my PC so that I can use my F22 Pro and my R/C simulator controller with my legacy-free laptop:P

And so, what do you suppose we do when drinkypoo starts trolling against Sony again, like so many times before? Better yet, in an article based on a funny Microsoft rep. quote? I say, we let it slide just as well.

That still burns me about the first xbox. It's life was way too short. I'd consider getting a 360 since it looks like a great machine, but after the way MS killed the original xbox after 4 years no way. Some 3rd party developers made games to stretch it out to 5 years, but still...

Not just short but artificially shortened. Microsoft basically pulled the plug on the XBox as soon as the 360 appeared. The PS2 is clearly last gen, but Sony are still producing new versions of it even now.

Not just short but artificially shortened. Microsoft basically pulled the plug on the XBox as soon as the 360 appeared. The PS2 is clearly last gen, but Sony are still producing new versions of it even now.

The major difference was that the PS2 was profitable per unit (ignore r&d) soon after launch while the Xbox was never profitable per unit up until it's demise. Mostly due to the sourced parts and IP Microsoft had to deal with. Sony's costs on the PS2 diminished continually while Microsoft's weren't as much under their control. A key part of that was the inclusion of the hard drive, HD's decrease in price per GB but generally not very much per unit. Contributing to their decision to partially ditch it i

There is a notable difference here in that the PS2 was a hugely successful and profitable piece of hardware that continues to outsell its 'next-gen' counter part on a regular basis, while the xbox was built and sold at a loss for MS and was quickly ignored by consumers as soon as the 360 hit shelves.
Why would MS continue to support a system that is basically dead weight to consumers and a huge hole in their coffers, and conversely, why would Sony not continue support for PS2 since it is still the major so